Menu

Dirty Lawyer, Dirty Judge, Dirty Men

Even though we’ve never shared a beer, I kinda feel as if District of Nebraska Senior Judge Richard Kopf and I have become friends. Sure, it’s just on the internet, but that’s how long distance friendships happen these days. And so when I read his post the other day, On being a dirty old man and how young women lawyers dress, I sucked in some wind and pondered what, if anything, I should do.

I thought about emailing Judge Kopf and telling him, “Dear Judge, are you fucking nuts? Take that down now. NOW!!!.” because I knew what would come. But then, who am I to tell a judge what to do? I twitted about it, which reflected my confusion:

You see, having read many of Judge Kopf’s posts, and getting a feel for his sense of humor, writing style and manner of using self-deprecation to make a point by carrying the burden himself rather than foisting it on someone else, or the rest of his gender, I got his point. I also understood how others would react.

And react they did. There was the commentary in the Omaha paper to the less kind response at Raw Story. Judge Kopf wrote a follow-up post, trying to explain the offending post:

I honestly don’t care how you (or others) remember me.* I do care passionately that federal trial judges be seen as individuals with all the strengths and weakness (baggage) that everyone else carries around.

In the rough and tumble world of a federal trial practice, it is sometimes necessary to see and react to that world as it is rather than as we wish it would be.

He apologized to those who took offense at his post, who saw only the superficial words, which blinded them from getting the point. Just as I knew his initial post would lead to a blood bath, I knew his apology wouldn’t fly with those who were outraged. There is neither explanation nor excuse for those who reject the real world in favor of their perfect world.

Unlike Rich Kopf, who has a bulls-eye target on his back because he wears robes, trench lawyers can afford to be the targets of gender politics because, well, our clients couldn’t care less about our sensitivity to feminist sensibilities. And so, suffering the slings and arrows of feminist epithets, from “well-known misogynist” to the more recent, and bizarre, misogynist lech, by a young Brooklyn feminist lawyer (who plans to explain how my negativity toward criminalizing revenge porn is motivated by my desire to get rich on civil cases. No, really) with far more passion than grasp.

Here’s the deal. Not all men are ashamed of their gender and desperately want to recreate themselves as hairy women. We have man-feelings. We like manly stuff. That includes appreciating attractive women. Cars, too, for some of us. And here’s the deal-breaker: We are not ashamed of it. In fact, we’re kinda happy with ourselves this way.

I can hear you screaming “rape culture,” though I still don’t understand what that means.

This is what I am not saying: that most men are happy to be men, with all the baggage feminists see as the yoke of patriarchal society keeping them down. We do not rape, sexually assault or harm women (or anyone else, for that matter). We respect women’s intelligence and skills, even while appreciating that they usually smell better than men. And if somebody touches you inappropriately, we would be the first to punch his lights out to stop him.

We think they should be paid as much as a man for doing the same work, and we think women should be in charge of their own bodies. Of course, we think we should be in charge of ours as well, and refuse to manscape. We have hair. Get over it.

We make jokes about things that you find totally inappropriate. Why? Because we find them funny. You don’t think so? Does that mean you’re in control of our sense of humor? Sorry, but humor doesn’t work that way.

And we think and feel all those things you hate about us even though your lean-in group told you how it’s preventing you from being the Amazon (the river, not the company) Queens of Society. We like women, and if we’re lucky, love one or two. We accept gender differences, including bosoms, whether ample or otherwise, and we’re good with that. We don’t see it as thinking less of you, but as appreciating you. You think we’re sexists pigs for it.

You think we’re female haters because we will not adopt your language, designed to make certain that no woman ever feels as if she’s a woman again, as if there is something wrong with being a woman. If you can try a case better than me, you will whup my butt at trial, and afterward, I will shake your hand and congratulate you on your skills. And it’s possible that I will admire the view as you walk away.

That’s men. Judge Kopf explained that we’re “both pigs and prudes.” A bit coarse and simplistic perhaps (remember, it was a blog post, for crying out loud), but the point is that we are what we are, and as much as feminists may march and chant, we’re not paying attention because the football game is on.

This isn’t the foolish antagonism of the backlash jerks who create stupid clubs like the National Association for Men. We aren’t promoting barefoot and pregnant at all, and we aren’t telling women what to do or who to do it with. You may be all fired up about gender politics. We’re all fired up about properly-cooked bacon. We have slightly different concerns.

But we are not your enemy. We never were. We don’t even think about it. We’re just guys, and you hate us for that, and for not making your gender politics the center of our universe. Sorry that we like the way gals look sometimes, and want our daughters to keep their cleavage to themselves.

Judge Kopf tried to make a point, using himself as foil, that most men in the real world are just normal guys. This outrages you? Bummer. He’s right, and your offense doesn’t change that. And you can call us names, and blame us for all your perceived ills of society, but we’re still going to watch the football game and eat bacon. And sometimes catch a glimpse of an ample bosom.

We’re men. And despite your misguided belief that we want to change our world because we really seek your approval, we’re good with being men. Leave Judge Kopf alone.

Post navigation

45 comments on “Dirty Lawyer, Dirty Judge, Dirty Men”

My take on reading the judge’s piece was slightly different. There is the inescapable fact that a couple million years of evolution as taught the men to like the women and vice versa (for the most part). Without the attraction to the opposite sex, we wouldn’t be here.

But the object in the courtroom is not to physically attract to ourselves, but to pitch a story and argument, be it to juries or judges. And you want your audience to remember the story and argument and not the person that made it. Ergo, dress modestly (clean, neat and boring). It’s all about the client, not the lawyer.

(I suppose if your case is a loser, of course, you might want to distract from the story, but that is another matter.)

I actually addressed the subject of what to wear to court for lawyers in a posting many years ago — after a male lawyer was bounced from the courtroom for wearing an ascot.

That was the underlying point I thought the judge wanted to make, though he did it in such colorful terms, and for women, that I think his point was lost (for some) to gender politics.

You might not have noticed, but this wasn’t a “what to wear” post. This was more about the path he took to get there, and the criticism of his taking that path. Your attention was probably diverted by the smell of bacon.

Still smarting from my last digital spanking when I, admittedly, did a clumsy job of impugning RK’s character in an SJ comment…My first instinct was to reserve my thoughts for an email…But then I’d be robbing the readers of SJ from an opportunity to see me get beat up a second time.

I think he’s jumped the shark this time. The problem, in my opinion, is that he seems to be saying there’s a reason for decorum, which applies to how all participants should dress in the courtroom which supersedes what anybody may feel about the need for such illusions.

Well, I say, by that standard this need for decorum applies to the unfiltered thoughts of a Judge as well…Whether or not a Judge can control the pervy thoughts about the appearance of the litigants in his or her view is immaterial to the higher calling, by RK’s standard or decorum. Furthermore, a man of RK’s intelligence knows full well what his willingness to publish these thoughts in such base language will mean. A complete debasement of the very need for decorum he bemoans.

As for the clothing thing, I suspect it’s less decorum than effectiveness, which is enhanced by adopting to reality rather than fighting it. We can embody our political views outside the courtroom, but in there, we’re advocates on someone’s behalf. As Turk says, our first duty is to the client, not our politics.

Turning to Judge Kopf’s decorum issues, it’s a blog, not a courtroom. He’s really not pervy, which was the point of his saying “reread” it. To see perviosity there is be rather shallow; accepting the reality of differing gender mindsets isn’t to suggest that he can’t control his craven desires. He was being self-deprecating in the process of making a point when he called himself a “dirty old man.” It was humor, even if it didn’t appeal to your sense of humor.

So what type of bacon do they serve in feminist book stores, crispy or chewy?

I like my bacon cut thick and cooked slowly. I will admit there’s a chance I misunderstand…But my perception of RK’s point is this: Effectiveness is decreased by failing to observe decorum, which is, in turn, diminished by dressing in a manner which is distracting. And since, in a courtroom, people’s lives and fortunes are often on the line…Well…We just can’t afford to take chances.

Naturally I assume he isn’t referring to a lawyer’s inability to effectively skip rope or do jumping jacks in high heels…But again, I don’t spend much time in the courtroom so please let me know if my understanding of what it takes to win a case is off the mark.

But again, I don’t spend much time in the courtroom so please let me know if my understanding of what it takes to win a case is off the mark.

Non-lawyers think there is a thing it take to win a case. Jurisprudence teaches us that we do everything, from the way we part our hair to our citation of the latest Supreme Court decision to use of words that mirror our judge’s last opinion to try to win a case. No one ever knows what detail, no matter how tiny, will help or hinder a cause, and so we try to cover every possibility, large and small. Should it be this way? Probably not, but reality is what we address and doing everything possible to win our client’s cause is our duty. So, that’s what a lawyer does to try to win a case. Everything.

“No one ever knows what detail, no matter how tiny, will help or hinder a cause, and so we try to cover every possibility, large and small. Should it be this way? Probably not, but reality is what we address and doing everything possible to win our client’s cause is our duty. So, that’s what a lawyer does to try to win a case. Everything.”

I don’t know how people do that nifty quote thing, but what you said there should be painted on the halls of every law school, and perhaps just the last sentence should be tattoo’d on a few butts and bosoms.

Yet the usual path would have been just another boring lecture that is easily ignored, and he apparently figures that there are too many who just haven’t gotten the message. Personally, though, I might have gone with a variation on Heinlein’s “pie with a fork” lecture in _Space Cadet_, which might be offbeat enough to attract attention without raising distracting issues.

Me, I think proper bacon making depends on context. Chewy for eating directly and crisp for crumbling. And always cook it in the nude, which teaches you keep the heat down. (This of course, applies only to bacon made with pork products. Advice for making bacon with women would be different, and you’re on your own if you like to do both at once.)

I read the judge’s post and the first 49 comments (as of yesterday). I also read your post that you linked to about wearing ties to court. This brought to mind something i experienced within the past year. I was one of a group of defense counsel gathered in a federal magistrate’s courtroom awaiting a mass arraignment of our clients, a violent street gang. One of the older lawyers was tieless, sporting an open collar. He announced to all of us that he had checked the Rules of Professional Conduct, and there was nothing requiring him to wear a tie to court. I don’t know what motivated him to take this approach, but the way he preened and spoke of his “daring” makes me believe that when he goes to court, it is not all about his client, the facts and the law, but all about the lawyer, instead. I have followed him on cases, and needles to say, am underwhelmed. There is a woman defense attorney in town that I have always associated with the word “too”, as in Too Much Blonde Hair, Too Much Cleavage, and Too Tight Clothes. Men are visual creatures. It is a fact of nature. It has to be taken into consideration.

Send this Mr. Fish cartoon over to the Judge. Have to admire a guy who can put that extra little something on the slider. I am reasonably confident more than a few batters waiting on deck wont forget the post.

If you read the SJ comment section Judge, Blawg On! Keep Blawging on…

Who knows one day some governor from NY might read this cross post and make the Curmudgeon a Judge. That is if you keep plowing the fertile ground for such precedent and acceptance Judge.

Even Judges are full of fault, folly, fear, and observation? You didn’t edit that part out of your post now did you Judge?

(My going on April 1st mantra is to be as concise as possible for no real good reason other than its probably a good idea)

That being said he is a Judge, you are part of the art (that I hope he takes up more consistently) and part of his guild, and I am a ticket holder of an unreserved seat.

I figured it wouldn’t be entirely appropriate (although it would) to go be getting all “technical” over his way (as of yet) as he seems to have his hands full and I was and am factually hoping he will be dismounting many more future posts of his with even more vigor for the next.

Besides this is the interfuses of the interlayered intertubes. Sometimes it is best to wink softly, order a round of beers for the whole section, and enjoy the ambiance and love of the game.

I bet you’ve never listened closely, with an open mind, and with respect to a woman explaining her perspective on the issues mentioned in your post once you realized her perspective differed from yours.

On the contrary, I’ve spent a great deal of time listening, both to old school feminists who paved the way for young women today, as well as neo-feminists and women who are not particularly feminist in their outlook but desire to be treated with respect despite their gender. So you lose your bet, big time.

Now I’m going to turn the tables on you. You ask your question with the self-serving and amorphous qualification, “with respect.” What does that mean? Old school feminists didn’t want to be men, and didn’t want men to be women. They wanted to be treated equally, with the good and bad that all people suffer. But “with respect” today means that only the language and ideas that conform to neo-feminist sensibilities are allowed, and women are entitled to a world that conforms to their delicate feelings. Does “with respect” mean that? I bet that it does, and I bet that you are so self-righteous, so arrogant, so myopic and so ignorant that you find it impossible to conceive why that’s a problem.

Because you are an attorney, I assume you’ve had some training in argumentation or debate; because you appear to be a somewhat successful attorney, I assume you’re skilled in argumentation; because of the academic institutions you attended, I assume you’re somewhat intelligent – please let me know if any of these assumptions are incorrect and I will rethink.

Your arguments in your post swat down strawmen. Because you are trained in argumentation, you would have realized that a rebuttal against your opponents’ actual arguments is stronger than a strawman argument. Because you are intelligent, had you listened well and with respect (usage explained below) you would have understood their arguments thus, with the above, if you still disagreed with your opponents, you would have countered their arguments and not strawmen. Because you are skilled in argumentation, your arguments thus presented would have been persuasive and not sounded like a knee-jerk rant.

If your assumption is that your audience is a bunch of morons, let me know, and I will rethink.

-“Not all men are ashamed of their gender and desperately want to recreate themselves as hairy women”
-“We like women, and if we’re lucky, love one or two. We accept gender differences, including bosoms, whether ample or otherwise, and we’re good with that. We don’t see it as thinking less of you, but as appreciating you. You think we’re sexists pigs for it.”
-“You think we’re female haters because we will not adopt your language, designed to make certain that no woman ever feels as if she’s a woman again, as if there is something wrong with being a woman.”

Also, you admit that you “still don’t know what [rape culture] means.”

Your reply to my comment throws up another strawman: “But “with respect” today means that only the language and ideas that conform to neo-feminist sensibilities are allowed, and women are entitled to a world that conforms to their delicate feelings.”

If someone’s usage of a word fits a common dictionary definition, you might want to start with the assumption that the word is being used in that manner. From Merriam-Webster:
>>1: a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation
2: an act of giving particular attention : consideration
3: a: high or special regard : esteem
b: the quality or state of being esteemed
4: particular, detail
>>
I’m using “respect” as defined in the second definition.

–“I bet that you are so self-righteous, so arrogant, so myopic and so ignorant that you find it impossible to conceive why that’s a problem.” — at least I had some evidence for my argument. And, this statement is more evidence. You insert a big pile of unfounded assumptions into your thinking about feminists and feminism. I don’t think you’ve heard anything a feminist has said for decades, if ever. Most likely this is a psychological defense mechanism.

Will I get a check in the mail, or do you prefer PayPal? Sorry. No square.

Ah, a game. You see, I don’t know who you are because you don’t tell me. You don’t use your full name. You don’t identify your gender, age or occupation. And you clearly have no grasp of how the logical fallacy of the strawman argument works, as conclusively demonstrated by your attempt to deflect while hiding under a rock.

So I call bullshit. Disagree? I would expect so. Come on out, reveal yourself, and then I won’t be limited to assumption. But as long as you hide, you leave me no choice but to assume what you have in mind. And even so, I still think you’re totally full of shit. And I assume my readers are quite intelligent, and easily see though games like yours. Much as I may be good at “argumentation,” you kinda suck at it.

It’s not so because you say so, just as you don’t get to decide that I couldn’t possibly listen to women because what I say doesn’t comport with what you feel. You see, you aren’t the measure of anything beyond yourself. You have yet to win, but feel free to play again.

Edit: By the way, try to use the reply button. You’re not special. Or at least not nearly as special as you think you are.

“Ah, a game. You see, I don’t know who you are because you don’t tell me. You don’t use your full name. You don’t identify your gender, age or occupation. ”
Not a game to me. I try to avoid revealing my gender, age and occupation (nor location) on the intenet because I’ve been tracked, stalked, then threatened by someone who found me with information from the internet. No game at all.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the argument. You misrepresented feminist arguments, then proceeded to argue against your misrepresentation.

-“Much as I may be good at “argumentation,” you kinda suck at it. ” The problem is you are providing evidence of your weakness, not mine. You still have not addressed any actual points.

-“It’s not so because you say so, just as you don’t get to decide that I couldn’t possibly listen to women because what I say doesn’t comport with what you feel. You see, you aren’t the measure of anything beyond yourself.”
I have made no representations about how I feel. If you think you know how I feel, you are again making unfounded assumptions. You are also self-contradicting here. You state that I am “not the measure of anything beyond yourself” though you presume to speak for “most men” in your OP.
I decided that you “couldn’t possibly listen to women because what [you] say doesn’t comport with” the majority of feminist text and speech.

-“Edit: By the way, try to use the reply button. You’re not special. Or at least not nearly as special as you think you are”
Again, an assumption. I didn’t use the reply button because your software provides an open commenting space automatically at the bottom. As the post to which I was replying was at the bottom of the posts, immediately above the open comment space, I just started typing there instead of thinking to hit reply first. Had nothing to do with thinking I’m “special” but only to do with not being careful. Terribly sorry if it disturbed you.

And now victimhood? Spare me. You have no arguments. You have the same self-serving and boring empty rhetoric we’ve all heard a thousand times, with the same passive-aggressive attacks that make people think feminists are just a bunch of hand-wringing whiners. And you’re brutally verbose.

But there is one thing here that I want to address, as it reflects the emptiness of your position:

Edit: By the way, try to use the reply button. You’re not special. Or at least not nearly as special as you think you are”

Again, an assumption. I didn’t use the reply button because your software provides an open commenting space automatically at the bottom. As the post to which I was replying was at the bottom of the posts, immediately above the open comment space, I just started typing there instead of thinking to hit reply first. Had nothing to do with thinking I’m “special” but only to do with not being careful. Terribly sorry if it disturbed you.

I know how my software works. It works the same for you as for everyone else. Yet you “just started typing there instead of thinking to hit reply first,” whereas everyone else somehow manages to figure it out and get it right. But rather than apologize, or just note it, you instead argue you’re right to be “special,” then add your passive-aggressive, “Terribly sorry if it disturbed you.”

You are a miserable example, I suspect a pathological liar, and an empty, pathetic shell of a human being. And here’s the rub: you can call me any name you want. I don’t care. Meeting your approval doesn’t interest me. And that’s why you lose, and will always lose. Just because you’re a woman doesn’t mean I, we, men, anyone gives a damn what you think. You are not the queen of the world. Just a sad, pathetic, whiny, self-righteous coward on the internet.

So let me reiterate from the other comment: No one cares if what we say or how we behave meets your approval. The only person who thinks your feminist approval is important is you. Terribly sorry if this disturbs you.

And your ability to argue truly does suck. Go back to your lean-in group and tell them what a terrible man I am because I just won’t agree with you and do what you say!!!. I’m done. You’ve murder too many words, too much bandwidth and accomplished nothing beyond proving you’re a twinkie and embarrassing your gender.

Ah. You were typing simultaneously. I see you’ve lost any semblance of control. Stop panicking. The world will continue even through great social change. And just because you were taught badly, and even if you’ve done bad things in response to that teaching, doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. Only that you must be willing to self-evaluate and overcome the bad lessons. Reform.

Lol. Sorry. I know you can’t hear me…I’ve known since the beginning. Take your blood pressure meds and a nap.

I peg her as some pimple-faced college girl at a 5th rate school in the middle of nowhere majoring in gender studies and teaching, all filled with twinkie stuffing. And this is probably the best argument she ever made, even though she makes no sense at all. Pathetic.

lol. I guess you both need to learn how to let your brains be guided by reason, not by emotion-based assumptions. Tufts then Harvard. 46 years old. Neither Gender Studies nor Education. Haven’t eaten a Twinkie, nor Twinkie stuffing since I was a kid.

I notice that despite the child-like sneers, … actually, I just deleted a ranty immature paragraph of my own.
Instead I will ask, is that the best you can do? Try to belittle me? I mean this in earnest: think about whether your posts and comments are well-considered and thoughtful rather than defensive spewing. If you are honest with yourselves, you will realize that you are repeatedly demonstrating my point and then you might want to consider whether my point may after all be valid. You are not listening and processing. You are reacting emotionally.

Here’s the problem, Emil. You hide under a rock, conceal your identity, then call us child-like. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to self-identify, then you leave it open to speculation. Blame yourself. It’s your fault and failure. If you want to be whoever you are, then you have to own up to it.

As for “defensive spewing” and “demonstrating your point,” that’s only in your fantasy. You are deeply stuck in some insane notion that I, we, men, the world, whoever, need to meet your approval. No one needs your approval. This is a core problem; the inexplicable belief that if men don’t conform to your feminist ideal, then men have a problem. Men don’t. You do. We just don’t give a flying shit whether we receive your feminist approval or not.

Twice I typed a response and twice it was deleted when I clicked “post comment” without answering the little math quiz.
So this will be a little more blunt – please understand.
I don’t like to leave identifying markers on the internet. I have kids, I’ve had a stalker, not going back.
It’s not “hiding under a rock.” Other than on the internet, I lead a completely open civil life, and I will gladly reveal any pertinent facts that don’t make it easy for a stranger to identify me and track my home or workplace.
It shouldn’t really matter anyway. If I didn’t have access to your brief bio, I would have made the same points, but I just would have started with lower expectations. Your response to my points shouldn’t rely on whether I’m male, female, green, blue, yellow, 6 months or 600 years.
I don’t think that you’re interested in my approval. Your response has been scoffing from the start, so why would I think that?
I did expect – my fault – based on your background, that you’d be interested in seeming to engage with reason, rather than only with bullying. But I forget, some lawyers succeed through reason and some through bullying. Why would I have assumed one way or another? I guess I need to learn about unsupported assumptions as well.

Can you possibly be as blind to what you write as it appears? You complain of bullying, while attacking and name-calling at every turn. Your hypocrisy is stunning. You say you aren’t behaving like your special, then give the victimhood excuse for expecting special treatment. If you’re afraid to reveal your identity on the internet, then don’t. But don’t complain about the consequences of failing to do so. You can have it either way. You can’t have it both ways.

And you almost made a comprehensible point, then muddied it up with this:

I did expect – my fault – based on your background, that you’d be interested in seeming to engage with reason, rather than only with bullying.

Go look at your first comment. You want to engage in reason? No, you want to play games and dictate the rules. And when I don’t comply with your demands, I’m bullying? Sorry, Emil, but you are totally full of shit. You can pretend otherwise, but there is no “reason” involved in what you write. Just excuses, whining and bullshit.

She said you were lovely and was very impressed that you went to Yale. Me, she didn’t care for as much.

Funniest part about it is that she opened with asking whether I had ever spoken “with respect” to a woman explaining her perspective (which of course couldn’t be possible since I didn’t think what she demanded I think). If other women were as nasty, hypocritical and incomprehensible as her, why would anyone want to speak with them?

You’ve said it before. It’s like religion. Theirs is the one true god, and it’s not possible for anyone to not want to be in the one true god’s good graces. There is simply no possibility that anyone could not want their approval, because they are *right.*

And here you are, okay about being a man. That can’t possibly be unless you’re a misogynist. You know that.

Scott H. Greenfield

What Do You Think?

I invite thoughtful comments, but please keep it civil and respectful. There are rules here. I reserve the right to delete or edit any/all comments. Links are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. If you don't like the rules, comment elsewhere. Volenti non fit injuria.
SHG